Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazuela
The creation of a park is not a recurring yearly expense. Once it's there, it just gets maintained.
Printing a newspaper incurs recurring expenses. Once it's printed, it gets discarded, and then printed again a week later.
There will be *A* savings. How much of a savings? I don't know. But it will be money saved that can be used for other things.
As someone said - just because something has been done the same way for years, doesn't mean it can't be improved and do it even better in the future. It doesn't mean that old ideas for improvement that were not addressed, are useless ideas.
It's a matter of saving money AND of being less wasteful with our natural resources. Why would you feel we SHOULD waste all the paper from people who just toss it in the trash, when there are ways to reduce that waste, that would actually save money in the process?
Why are people so dead set against that? I'm really confused and perplexed about that.
|
You must have skipped the part where I said get the true facts and see what people want in the majority. It has been said multiple times that most people do not want the Rec News, where does all this data reside so it can be submitted to the powers that be for a cause to effect this change. I really do not care how it is done as long as it is done well with savings that are worth it now and in the future. None of the supposed savings everyone keeps coming up with, has been confirmed or for that matter truly quantified. If it is truly a huge savings it will not be hard to get people to get behind it. We currently have two electronic examples that I would dare say you could not get even a consensus that they are well done and people would want to pay for them. If you tell people that the savings is $10,000, how much agreement do you think that will garner.
A park is a one time cost to develop but the ongoing maintenance is not by any stretch of the imagination free or at a fixed rate. As far as change, should it not be for the better and not just for change sake? If you want to attack the waste of natural resources & waste how about eliminating grass for lawns that waste water and fill up the land fill with grass clippings. Not to mention the chemicals that are poured on them.
I agree the Rec News process could be changed for the better but have not heard anything factual, except the $800,000 to print it, that shows positive movement forward.